End vaccine-maker immunity

Summary#

The Let Injured Americans Be Legally Empowered Act, or LIABLE Act, is a proposed standalone federal law. It would bar federal laws from giving manufacturers of covered COVID-19 vaccines immunity from lawsuits or limiting their liability for related claims; its stated goal is to make those manufacturers legally answerable for such claims.

  • If enacted, the bar would apply to claims about vaccines licensed or otherwise authorized by the FDA to prevent or reduce harm from COVID-19 or the spread of SARS-CoV-2 or a virus that mutates from it.
  • The bill names several sections of the Public Health Service Act, but its rule applies to any federal law that would provide the specified immunity or liability limit.
  • The change would apply whether the vaccine was administered or used before, on, or after enactment.
  • People could still seek compensation through the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program or the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Seeking or receiving compensation through either program would not, by itself, bar a civil lawsuit.
  • The bill is not yet law. It does not itself establish that a manufacturer is liable or create a right to compensation.

What it means for you#

  • People with claims: Federal immunity or liability limits could no longer block a claim against a covered vaccine’s manufacturer. The bill does not guarantee that a lawsuit can be brought on any particular facts, or that the claimant would win.
  • People using compensation programs: You would not be barred from bringing a civil action solely because you sought or received compensation through either named program.
  • Vaccine manufacturers: You would lose the protection of federal laws that immunize you from, or limit your liability for, the claims described in the bill. The bill does not require anyone to sue.
  • General public: The bill does not change vaccine approval or use rules, and it does not abolish the two compensation programs.

Money#

No cost estimate is provided in the supplied material.

  • The bill does not specify an appropriation, fee, fine, or change to compensation amounts.
  • Manufacturers could face claims that federal law would otherwise immunize them from or limit. The bill provides no estimate of resulting legal costs or other financial effects.
  • The bill does not say whether or how federal spending on the compensation programs would change.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not set out the rules, evidence standards, or procedures for a civil claim, or explain what damages could be sought.
  • It does not define “loss.” The full scope of claims covered by the phrase “relating to” a vaccine is not explained.
  • The supplied material does not include the cited Public Health Service Act provisions or other relevant current law, so the precise change to existing federal protections and how it interacts with other laws could not be verified.
  • The bill does not explain how courts should handle cases involving both a compensation-program claim and a civil action. It only says that seeking or receiving program compensation is not, by itself, a bar to a civil action.
  • The bill is at an early stage. It does not give a separate start date beyond saying it applies to vaccine use before, on, or after enactment.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to remove federal legal barriers that could prevent people from bringing claims against manufacturers over losses connected to COVID-19 vaccines.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that people should be able to ask a court to decide a claim rather than be barred by federal immunity or liability limits.
  • Keeping access to the compensation programs while allowing civil actions means a person would not have to forgo a lawsuit solely because they sought or received program compensation.

Case against#

  • Removing immunity or liability limits does not establish that a manufacturer caused a loss or is legally liable. The bill does not explain what rules would govern those questions.
  • The bill’s retroactive reach could affect claims about vaccine use that occurred before enactment, but it does not explain how pending or completed cases would be treated.
  • One concern is that the bill changes federal protections without setting out claim procedures or clarifying how civil actions would work alongside the compensation programs.